Expected goals

[quoonbeatz]

And then when I brought up you mentioning other stats (shots and shots on target) you said it wasn't about those...

So it was about some stats but not others, as arbitrarily chosen by you. Yes?

No.

The thread is about xg. I said xg is for people who like stats more than football. You dug up a post about shots on target which didn’t work because it wasn’t about xg. If I’d been talking about xg in said old post you might have had a good catch but as I wasn’t, you didn’t.

Like I said, not sure why you’re so wound up about a bit of light hearted joshing but it’s passed a bit of time so fair play.

[Leisure]

You are pretending I think. Loads of good explanations and helpful links to your question and you are choosing to ask silly questions instead of learning the answer.

Show me the silly questions that I asked?

[distortiondave]

Just taking this example - how can you have 2.1 goals???

[Mattster]

No.

The thread is about xg. I said xg is for people who like stats more than football.

So, ‘one arbitrary stat is for people who like stats over football whilst others aren’t’

Yes?

[quoonbeatz]

So, ‘one arbitrary stat is for people who like stats over football whilst others aren’t’

Yes?

No. ‘One arbitrary stat is for people who like stats over football.’

Not sure why you’re trying to make out I said something I didn’t, when everyone can see exactly what I said.

[Mattster]

No. ‘One arbitrary stat is for people who like stats over football.’

Not sure why you’re trying to make out I said something I didn’t, when everyone can see exactly what I said.

But shots and shots on target are not for people who like stats over football? Or are they too?

[quoonbeatz]

But shots and shots on target are not for people who like stats over football? Or are they too?

That’s not for me to say.

[Mattster]

That’s not for me to say.

This might work if I’d been talking about xg, but good try my man, good try.

You already did.

Thanks for playing.

[claret2018]

Some folk would be happier if we still played in button up shirts and the players had a fag at half time.

[quoonbeatz]

You already did.

Thanks for playing.

It’s been a pleasure, bad luck for you this time but I’m sure you’ll bounce back. You need to improve your comprehension skills, my man, as that is some heavy misunderstanding you’ve had there.

[Mattster]

It’s been a pleasure, bad luck for you this time but I’m sure you’ll bounce back. You need to improve your comprehension skills, my man, as that is some heavy misunderstanding you’ve had there.

Go on then, explain my heavy misunderstanding. Put my comprehension skills to shame.

Because my comprehension of that second post is that my tongue in cheek post would only not "work" ("might work if" meaning it hasn't) if shots and/or shots on target are not for people who prefer stats over football. Otherwise, my post would "work".

Meaning that your first post only applies to some stats you have arbitrarily selected and not to others. Which is what I've stated you have said, but you're denying.

[quoonbeatz]

Go on then, explain my heavy misunderstanding. Put my comprehension skills to shame.

Because my comprehension of that second post is that my tongue in cheek post would only not "work" ("might work if" meaning it hasn't) if shots and/or shots on target are not for people who prefer stats over football. Otherwise, my post would "work".

Meaning that your first post only applies to some stats you have arbitrarily selected and not to others. Which is what I've stated you have said, but you're denying.

Happy to help.

I said xg is for people who like stats over football.

You then said I like stats over football but linked a post where I mentioned shots on target, not xg. Hence your attempted gotcha didn’t work.

I’ve made no comparison between xg and any other stat, you’ve misunderstood my post. Got to leave for the match now so take it easy.

[Mattster]

I said xg is for people who like stats over football.

Yep.

You then said I like stats over football but linked a post where I mentioned shots on target, not xg. Hence your attempted gotcha didn’t work.

Which means you are stating (if you use those comprehension skills you tried to flex) shots on target/shots isn't a stat for people who like stats over football. Because you're saying that applies to xG as a stat but not shots on target/shots. Otherwise the "attempted gotcha" works. It's pretty simple comprehension.

[claretskeith]

A tweet on Twitter (from a Leeds fan) "Burnley 5 goals from 9 shots totalling 0.76xG lol" and calling it interesting.

I guess the question is, can we continue to be this lethal as normalisation will surely kick in at some point.

[dsr]

We don't need to be all that lethal. For example, the xG chart I see says that Brownhill would score his through ball less than half the time. With the goalkeeper out of position, and no defenders in sight, he would miss more than he would score. Not for me.

Koleosho would score his goal only once in 8 attempts. All he had to do was hit it cleanly in the right general direction - he can do that more than 1 in 8. Gudmondsson's goal is 1 in 14 - he had a free shot and time to pick his spot, a professional would expect to score that more than 1 in 14 times.

[Rileybobs]

Again, most of our players are much better than the average at this level so we will continue to outperform xG.

[quoonbeatz]

Yep.



Which means you are stating (if you use those comprehension skills you tried to flex) shots on target/shots isn't a stat for people who like stats over football. Because you're saying that applies to xG as a stat but not shots on target/shots. Otherwise the "attempted gotcha" works. It's pretty simple comprehension.

It is indeed simple comprehension so I’m not sure why you’re struggling with it so much.

I’m not saying any of those things. You are saying that I’m saying them but that’s you projecting. I’ve only said xg is for people who like stats over football, I haven’t given an opinion on any other stat. Not sure why you’ve seen your arse over me poking a bit of fun as you’re one of the better posters on here but you’ve really had a ‘mare on this.

[Newty]

Just taking this example - how can you have 2.1 goals???

3 out of every 4 penalties are scored.
So, if you have a penalty, there's a 75% chance of it going in.
A percentage can also be represented as a whole number:
75% = 0.75

That would be 0.75xg. Obviously you can't have 0.75 goals, but you can't have 75% goals either but if someone said you have 75% chance of scoring this penalty you'd understand that 3/4 penalties are scored, you wouldn't ask "how are we going to be awarded 75% of a goal?".

If you have two penalties in a game, you have a 75% chance twice.
75% + 75% = 150%
0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5

Two penalties is 1.5xg. Again you can't have 1.5 goals. But if you had 1.5xg 2 games in a row you'd have 3xg, likely to be 3 goals.

So, what happens if you have 2 penalties, 2 games in a row. Statistics tell you that you should score 3, miss 1 and have 3 goals, but in reality you scored all 4? This simply says your penalty taker is Graham Alexander.

Does that help?

[Leisure]

3 out of every 4 penalties are scored.
So, if you have a penalty, there's a 75% chance of it going in.
A percentage can also be represented as a whole number:
75% = 0.75

That would be 0.75xg. Obviously you can't have 0.75 goals, but you can't have 75% goals either but if someone said you have 75% chance of scoring this penalty you'd understand that 3/4 penalties are scored, you wouldn't ask "how are we going to be awarded 75% of a goal?".

If you have two penalties in a game, you have a 75% chance twice.
75% + 75% = 150%
0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5

Two penalties is 1.5xg. Again you can't have 1.5 goals. But if you had 1.5xg 2 games in a row you'd have 3xg, likely to be 3 goals.

So, what happens if you have 2 penalties, 2 games in a row. Statistics tell you that you should score 3, miss 1 and have 3 goals, but in reality you scored all 4? This simply says your penalty taker is Graham Alexander.

Does that help?

Thanks for this but eg is still rubbish and completely useless/unnecessary. What's the point of it???

[Dyched]

[quote=Newty post_id=2393821 time=<a href="tel:1723967293">1723967293</a> user_id=484]
3 out of every 4 penalties are scored.
So, if you have a penalty, there's a 75% chance of it going in.
A percentage can also be represented as a whole number:
75% = 0.75

That would be 0.75xg. Obviously you can't have 0.75 goals, but you can't have 75% goals either but if someone said you have 75% chance of scoring this penalty you'd understand that 3/4 penalties are scored, you wouldn't ask "how are we going to be awarded 75% of a goal?".

If you have two penalties in a game, you have a 75% chance twice.
75% + 75% = 150%
0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5

Two penalties is 1.5xg. Again you can't have 1.5 goals. But if you had 1.5xg 2 games in a row you'd have 3xg, likely to be 3 goals.

So, what happens if you have 2 penalties, 2 games in a row. Statistics tell you that you should score 3, miss 1 and have 3 goals, but in reality you scored all 4? This simply says your penalty taker is Graham Alexander.

Does that help?

Thanks for this but eg is still rubbish and completely useless/unnecessary. What's the point of it???
[/quote]

To my understanding is a more detailed stat than shots.

On traditional stats like goals on/off target you don’t really get the full picture.

It’s how good the chances of scoring from the shot was. A team can finish with 30 shots, 10 on target, 20 off for example. But if they were all taken 50 yds out it doesn’t really paint a true reflection of the chances. Whereas xg does.

[RVclaret]

Thanks for this but eg is still rubbish and completely useless/unnecessary. What's the point of it???

You can call it rubbish and have that view, but when you are still asking ‘what’s the point of it’ when people have taken time to answer that in detail, comes across as either ignorant or simply unwilling to learn.

[Mattster]

Thanks for this but eg is still rubbish and completely useless/unnecessary. What's the point of it???

The point of it is the same as absolutely every other stat you've never whinged about before. Have you ever asked what the point of the shots/shots on target stat is?

It is there to provide a small insight/context into the result of a game. If you want to know who had more of the ball, you can look at possession. If you want to look at who had the most attempts on goal, you can look at shots. If you want to know who created the better chances you can look at xG. By themselves, though, they don't provide the full picture and can lead to misinterpretation/misrepresentation.

xG (as all stats, really) for fans is just context. For coaches, players and recruitment staff in football it is more useful.

[Leisure]

Thanks all but I'll just stick to goals and points stats.

[Mattster]

Thanks all but I'll just stick to goals and points stats.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63645&p=1884066&hil ... t#p1884066

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63743&p=1888052&hil ... s#p1888052

[Leisure]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63645&p=1884066&hil ... t#p1884066

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63743&p=1888052&hil ... s#p1888052

And?

[Mattster]

And?

Thems some funny looking goals and points stats.

[ClaretCliff]

It's just a statistic, like the number of shots, number of passes, possession, number of corners, number of offsides etc. Just like those statistics they've never taken issue with, in isolation it means little and no one is forcing you to pay aby attention to it. But unlike those statistics it has a decimal point it, therefore it is the product of nerds!

You say it’s just a statistic like number of shots, number of corners, etc. but there is one big difference. All the stats you quote are real things which can be counted and are accurate whereas expected goals are pure guesswork.

[Leisure]

Thems some funny looking goals and points stats.

And?

[claretspice]

It's a way of giving people an indication about the balance of play or chances that is slightly better calibrated than a simple tally of shots.

It shouldn’t be treated as gospel or definitive, any more than any other tool. But it's a bit daft to dismiss it out of hand.

[Spijed]

Does expected goals ever take into account the standard of player?

For example, when Cardiff hit the post in the first half yesterday, that chance would almost certainly have been taken by the likes of Mo Salah or Harry Kane, but not always at levels below the Prem.

[claretskeith]

Does expected goals ever take into account the standard of player?

For example, when Cardiff hit the post in the first half yesterday, that chance would almost certainly have been taken by the likes of Mo Salah or Harry Kane, but not always at levels below the Prem.

Nope.

[Silkyskills1]

Some folk would be happier if we still played in button up shirts and the players had a fag at half time.

At least one of those applied to the great Jimmy Greaves. Just sayin'.

[Mattster]

You say it’s just a statistic like number of shots, number of corners, etc. but there is one big difference. All the stats you quote are real things which can be counted and are accurate whereas expected goals are pure guesswork.

It's not just "pure guesswork" though is it? It's calculated, by people considerably more intelligent than you and me, as has been explained multiple times in this thread.

Let's have a look at people's problems with it.

So far we have it's...
Pointless (only thing that matters is goals)
Useless
Pure guesswork

Any to add? We can address them all in one go then rather than pointing out why you're wrong/hypocritical only for you to pivot to something else, get it pointed why you're wrong/hypocritical and repeat...

[bfcmik]

I think if you have a stat that isn't provable then it isn't a real stat merely an opinion. I'm reasonably sure that we have beaten our xG every season since it was invented. We don't play the sort of football that suits xG.

If your example is using real xG calculations regarding a penalty being only counted as 0.75 xG than it is wrong. In professional football I would think it should be somewhere over 0.9 xG

[Devils_Advocate]

If your example is using real xG calculations regarding a penalty being only counted as 0.75 xG than it is wrong. In professional football I would think it should be somewhere over 0.9 xG

Opta article on penalties and the historical data they use to calculate the xG.

https://theanalyst.com/2024/05/premier- ... -free-goal

[Commy]

Does expected goals ever take into account the standard of player?

For example, when Cardiff hit the post in the first half yesterday, that chance would almost certainly have been taken by the likes of Mo Salah or Harry Kane, but not always at levels below the Prem.

That's a good point. It should be done on players not chances, as the better players will have a higher xg? If they want to use stats they should go the whole hog as I am sure the clubs have all the player stats for this.

[Devils_Advocate]

That's a good point. It should be done on players not chances, as the better players will have a higher xg? If they want to use stats they should go the whole hog as I am sure the clubs have all the player stats for this.

No it should't as that would be predicted goals not expected goals. The principle behind the stat isn't that xG should = the actual goals, but instead gives a view of how a team is doing in terms of creating goal scoring opportunities against other teams at a set bench mark and then it gives a second view of how a team is doing in terms of converting their opportunities (xG v aG) against other teams at a set bench mark.

[Mattster]

I think if you have a stat that isn't provable then it isn't a real stat merely an opinion. I'm reasonably sure that we have beaten our xG every season since it was invented. We don't play the sort of football that suits xG.

If your example is using real xG calculations regarding a penalty being only counted as 0.75 xG than it is wrong. In professional football I would think it should be somewhere over 0.9 xG

23/24 Goals: 41 xG: 40.6 (~correct)
22/23 Goals: 87 xG: 66.2 (+20)
21/22 Goals: 34 xG: 39.7 (-6)
20/21 Goals: 33 xG: 39.3 (-7)
19/20 Goals: 43 xG: 47.4 (-5)
18/19 Goals: 45 xG: 44.4 (~correct)
17/18 Goals: 36 xG: 32.3 (+3)

RE: the provable bit. How about possession? Is that a real stat or an opinion? A quick read of the definition of the word "statistic" might also be worth a check.

*edit: should have said this is Opta data taken from FBREF

[aggi]

Does expected goals ever take into account the standard of player?

For example, when Cardiff hit the post in the first half yesterday, that chance would almost certainly have been taken by the likes of Mo Salah or Harry Kane, but not always at levels below the Prem.

Very, very few players persistently outperform their xG.

For the top strikers a lot of it is about taking better quality shots (with associated higher xG) to give a better chance of scoring

[Clowbridge89]

23/24 Goals: 41 xG: 40.6 (~correct)
22/23 Goals: 87 xG: 66.2 (+20)
21/22 Goals: 34 xG: 39.7 (-6)
20/21 Goals: 33 xG: 39.3 (-7)
19/20 Goals: 43 xG: 47.4 (-5)
18/19 Goals: 45 xG: 44.4 (~correct)
17/18 Goals: 36 xG: 32.3 (+3)

RE: the provable bit. How about possession? Is that a real stat or an opinion? A quick read of the definition of the word "statistic" might also be worth a check.

*edit: should have said this is Opta data taken from FBREF

Possession is based on passes rather than time on the ball, so definitely not an opinion.

[Commy]

Are possession stats actually when the team has possession? Most of them now want to play Pep ball and pass around their defenders for a quarter of the match. If the opposition sits and watches them, how can that actually mean anything. It is different if the team has possession and are doing something with it, like Liverpool's 82% ish against us when we won 2-0 and they were attacking and probing. It is the same with total passes. A team does 500 passes and 300 are between their defenders. Does it actually mean anything?

[Mattster]

Possession is based on passes rather than time on the ball, so definitely not an opinion.

It's calculated, in different ways by different stats providers. Some do it based on passes, some on time until an interception / the other team takes "control", who is in "control" isn't always strsightforward (50/50 duels and the like) so ultimately when "control" changes hands is an opinion. So it's not a "fact" in the same way shots, offsides etc. are is it?

[clarets1978]

Think Saturday was another day where this state actually had no correlation with the actual result. Not even close in fact!

[ClaretCliff]

It’s probably about time to remind ourselves of the quote -
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics”

[ŽižkovClaret]

I get how it is useful for game analysis by coaches, but it really strikes me as another stat originally used to help bookies determine in-play odds that got out, like the raptors in Jurassic Park.

Another part of the geekification of football. I don't want to hear about, or bloody pre-assists. Let me just watch the f**king game

[Mattster]

Has anyone ever been stopped from watching the f**king game by the xG stat? Massive graphic covering the whole screen? Someone walking on the pitch and stopping play with the stat on a banner?

No?

[Newty]

This thread is dire.

It explains why post match analysis is so low level and why we have to put up with pundits boiling down all the time, expense, thought and effort professional coaches put into preparing 22+ elite sportsmen competing for 90+ minutes into "one team just wanted it more".

[ŽižkovClaret]

Happy to help.

I said xg is for people who like stats over football.

You then said I like stats over football but linked a post where I mentioned shots on target, not xg. Hence your attempted gotcha didn’t work.

I’ve made no comparison between xg and any other stat, you’ve misunderstood my post. Got to leave for the match now so take it easy.

Case in point, Johnathan Wilson once said something in the way of "People use goals too much to judge how a game went"

[ŽižkovClaret]

This thread is dire.

It explains why post match analysis is so low level and why we have to put up with pundits boiling down all the time, expense, thought and effort professional coaches put into preparing 22+ elite sportsmen competing for 90+ minutes into "one team just wanted it more".

There's a happy place somewhere in the middle ground isn't there? TBH in the age of several channels / providers, is there room for 3 tier match analysis?

Yer Da / Knows his football / Nerdfest

[aggi]

Think Saturday was another day where this state actually had no correlation with the actual result. Not even close in fact!

But it does provide a bit of backup to go with all the people who said "Well we won 5-0 but didn't play that well".